Howell v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis

Decision Date10 June 1946
Docket Number13301.,No. 13300,13300
Citation155 F.2d 807
PartiesHOWELL v. TERMINAL R. ASS'N OF ST. LOUIS. TERMINAL R. ASS'N OF ST. LOUIS v. HOWELL.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Roberts P. Elam, of St. Louis, Mo. (Harvey B. Cox, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for Joy B. Howell.

Arnot L. Sheppard, of St. Louis, Mo., for Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis.

Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

This action was brought by Joy B. Howell against Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligence. Issues were joined, and the case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $33,000. The defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. Thereafter, with leave of court, the defendant filed, in addition, a motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence relating to the extent of the plaintiff's injuries. The court disposed of the defendant's separate motions in one order, which, so far as pertinent, reads as follows:

"The Court having seen and examined and duly considered the defendant's separate motions for `Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict of the Jury Herein or for a New Trial' and `for a New. Trial on the Ground of Newly Discovered Evidence', heretofore submitted herein on oral argument and briefs of counsel and the evidence adduced on the latter motion, and being sufficiently advised of and concerning the premises Doth Order that said motion for `Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict of the Jury Herein or for a New Trial' be and the same is hereby overruled, and that said motion `for a New Trial on the Ground of Newly Discovered Evidence' be and the same is hereby sustained to the extent that the Defendant be granted a new trial only as to the issue of extent of injuries and damages.

"It Is Further Ordered by the Court that the verdict rendered herein on the 22nd day of May, 1945, and the judgment entered thereon, be set aside on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and that the Defendant be granted a new trial as to the issue of the extent of Plaintiff's injuries and Plaintiff's Damages."

The plaintiff has appealed from the order upon the ground that the court abused its discretion in granting the defendant a new trial as to the issue of plaintiff's injuries and damages.

The defendant has appealed from the order upon the ground that the court submitted to the jury the issue of liability upon an erroneous theory.

Whatever may be thought to be the effect of the order appealed from, which, read literally, seems to have vacated the entire verdict and judgment and left the case completely undetermined, the order is not an appealable one.

An order granting or denying a motion for a new trial is not an appealable order. State of Missouri v. Todd, 8 Cir., 122 F.2d 804, 806; Jones v. Thompson, 8 Cir., 128 F.2d 888, 889; Alexander v. Special School District of Booneville, 8 Cir., 132 F.2d 355, 358; Gersing v. Chafitz, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 38, 133 F.2d 384; Bass v. Baltimore & Ohio Terminal R. Co., 7 Cir., 142 F.2d 779, 780, 781; Barbarino v. Stanhope S. S. Co. Limited, 2 Cir., 150 F.2d 54, 55; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Ford Motor Co. v. Busam Motor Sales, 11100.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • December 8, 1950
    ...an appeal does not lie from an order granting a new trial. Barbarino v. Stanhope S. S. Co., 2 Cir., 150 F.2d 54; Howell v. Terminal R. Association, 8 Cir., 155 F.2d 807; Florini v. Stegner, 3 Cir., 82 F.2d 708; Long v. Davis, 9 Cir., 169 F.2d 982; Sentinel Co. v. Dinwiddie, 7 Cir., 41 F.2d ......
  • Basciano v. Reinecke
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • February 11, 1963
    ...is wholly without merit. Appeal dismissed. 1 That such an order is normally not immediately appealable is clear. Howell v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n, 155 F.2d 807 (8th Cir., 1946); Youdan v. Majestic Hotel Management Corp., 125 F.2d 15 (7th Cir., 1942). 2 But cf. Ford Motor Co. v. Busam Motor Sa......
  • Tye v. Hertz Drivurself Stations
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • February 10, 1949
    ...of the rights and liabilities of the parties in this case, and that the orders are not final or appealable. Howell v. Terminal R. Association, 8 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 807, 808. For the reasons stated, the appeal will be 1 Title 28 United States Code Annotated, § 1291, which insofar as pertin......
  • Wagner v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 19748-9.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • April 8, 1970
    ...because the granting of a new trial on the issue of damages renders the order interlocutory and nonappealable. Howell v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n, 155 F.2d 807 (8th Cir. 1946). Although the judgment denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and granting a new trial on t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT